Find a Lawyer

MENDI KHAN versus INAYAT ALI

The plaintiff moved the application for the preparation of additional evidence, which was filed by the trial court, in the XIII, RR 1 and 2 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), motion for additional evidence. Was under payment. On non-payment of compensation, the defendants applied for the rejection of the same thing which was rejected by the parties and the list of all the evidence or witnesses should be presented at the first hearing of the suit and if any party is present at the first hearing. I have failed to offer the same. Then the court can allow additional evidence for sufficient reason. The trial court did not commit any illegal act while the writ petition was dismissed.

Related judgments — High Court Azad Kashmir, 2014

• UNITED BANK LIMITED v. DISTRICT JUDGE WITH THE POWER OF LABOUR COURT 2014 PLC 418
• FOREST DEPARTMENT through Secretary Forest, Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaf v. SHABBIR HUSSAIN 2014 CLC 538
• MUHAMMAD FAZAL v. MUHAMMAD ILYAS 2014 YLR 569
• Dr. MUHAMMAD IQBAL v. GOVERNMENT OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2014 PLC(CS) 585
• STATE through Advocate-General Azad Jammu and Kashmir Muzaffarabad v. MUSHTAQ AHMED QURESHI 2014 PCrLJ 729
• Syed SHARAFAT HUSSAIN NAQVI v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2014 PLC(CS) 754
• JAMROZ KHAN v. MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN 2014 MLD 783
• JAVAID IQBAL v. INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, AZAD KASHMIR GOVERNMENT MUZAFFARABAD 2014 PLC(CS) 787

All High Court Azad Kashmir judgments of 2014 →

ask a advocate free from Sudhnoti lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes